Roundup: How can politicians and public officials work in harmony?

Stella Manzie describes the relationship between politicians and senior public managers as delicate, symbiotic and sometimes precarious: like dancing on ice. Photograph: Ken Mckay/Ken McKay/Rex Features

Richard Harries is deputy director of the independent thinktank Reform

How should officials be held to account? I agree with officials being held to account by Select Committees - but ministers need to understand that this will fundamentally change the "bargain". Officials will no longer tolerate being the whipping boys if they believe a problem was the result of a duff decision by the minister.

Officials ignoring ministers is rare but shocking: How many times did you hear colleagues saying something like "I know that's what the minister wants but s/he's wrong and I'm not going to do it." Personally, I didn't hear it very often - but it always shocked me when I did...

Civil service posts are too short: I'd take issue with the claim that civil servants have built up years of experience. We need to keep people in posts far longer. It's about giving much more thought and planning to where those posting should be.

The civil service needs to be more open about its performance: Strengthening permanent secretary objectives would be a good start. But there is also a need for committees to get better at holding people to account. Limiting the number of questioners, so only two or three who are most knowledgeable and prepared on a subject, would be a simple start.

Ministers should formally appoint permanent secretaries: The situation at the moment gives ministers lots of ways to influence the appointment, so they effectively have this power already. The key is making it transparent. If the minister has made the appointment, it is a lot easier to have frank discussions.

Blair McPherson is an active commentator on the public sector and a former local authority director of community services

There is a lack of trust: In local government managers, sometimes even senior managers, misunderstand the behaviour of politicians. They see councillors vote for a strategy and then resist its implementation. Officers need to understand where politicians are coming from because you can't have mutual respect and trust if officers think councillors / politicians will not make unpopular decisions.

Roles are being blurred: In local government the relationship between a chief executive and leader of the council can be a very powerful partnership. However in recent times there has been a blurring of roles. As council leaders are now paid posts some leaders are questioning the need for a chief executive. Our system works on checks and balances if you remove or downgrade the chief executives post you upset this.

Ministers are often ill-prepared to lead their departments: There is an evident lack of respect and thus failure to hear to the voices of those in a number of departments and local authorities. MPs receive little or no training in order to better prepare them for these roles. Ministers are sometimes only in these positions due to their political capital.

We need to encourage far more diversity: Evidence suggests this is not just about attracting different groups into the civil service but also political office. But when they get there studies show how minority groups access support resources is different - indeed they can sometimes think using mentoring schemes provided is somehow cheating.

Trust arrives on foot - but it leaves on horseback! Respect, the ability to talk frankly and openly about areas of disagreement, then sticking to what was agreed - unless a discussion is had first. It is not blind trust, it is about engagement and scrutiny.

Antony Carpen is a former member of the civil service and blogger on policymaking and public administration

Clearer criteria is needed for determining success of policies: Criteria for success and failure policy-wise need to be made clear by ministers - with select committee scrutiny of what those are. That way, it will be easier for select committees to hold ministers to account. Also it will be more clear to the public if a failing minister is not dismissed, or even worse, promoted.

High turnover of ministers and officials: Regular turnover of both undermines the ability to develop anything near a working relationship. In particular under the Gordon Brown years, regular ministerial turnover made it difficult for civil servants to work out what the then government's priorities were because of different personal preferences of ministers and also because much of the policy initiative came from Downing Street.

Patrick Diamond is a Labour councillor for Newington, and worked as a policy advisor under the Labour government

Accountability is at the heart of this discussion: How well equipped are ministers to hold officials to account in an intelligent way? Select committees are trying to flex their muscles by compelling officials to appear and take responsibility for policy and delivery failures - but is this wise or indeed even consistent with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility?

Preparing civil servants for an opposition government: There is a strong case for putting relations between the civil service and the opposition on a more formal footing so that adequate preparatory work is done prior to ministers coming into government. This might help to improve relations all round.

David Owen held various senior Treasury roles before raising a concern that advice to ministers might be in breach of the Civil Service Code

Ministers and civil servants should be offered training programmes: There's a strong case for training for ministers and prospective ministers. I also wonder if there might be training for civil servants in serving political leaders. It always surprised me never to be offered training on the constitutional position, or where the lines lie on political neutrality.

Policy and delivery are intertwined but the distinction remains: It sounds neat on paper for ministers to account for policy and officials to account for delivery - of course policy and delivery are intertwined. Yet notwithstanding the blurred boundary this may be a helpful guide. Officials should also be accountable for policy advice - to ministers. If policy has been decided and civil servants sign up to delivering it, then is it reasonable for the minister to refer select committees to officials?

Rachel Rogers is a councillor for Weymouth and Portland borough and chair of Labour Group

Lack of public understanding: This lack of clarity is something that politicians can easily exploit by offloading responsibility for badly thought-out policies onto council staff. I would like to see national government, councils, councillors and local media working together to try to improve understanding of these layers of responsibility, to increase participation and accountability and ultimately to enable people to make more informed choices.

An increase in transparency is vital: Both in terms of the relationship between politicians and administrative staff and also in terms of relationship with the electorate. Social media will shine an increasingly bright spotlight on a lack of openness and transparency at all levels of government.

Resist temptation to blame staff publicly when things go wrong: A tendency to public criticism will come back to bite politicians when they least expect it.

• Want your say? Email us at public.leaders@theguardian.com.

To get our articles on policy and leadership direct to your inbox, sign up to the Guardian Public Leaders Network now.